ue_bp_set_pin_value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that Unreal does not validate values (an example is given), and that the tool re-reads the pin after writing to return the true value, advising users to check it rather than trust success. This is valuable, non-obvious behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a crucial warning. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: the write action, the non-validation caveat, and the read-back verification. It does not describe parameter formats or return structure, but those are partially implied by the schema and the behavior description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for 'pin' (input pin) and 'value' (literal, unvalidated), but does not explain blueprint_path, node, or graph_name beyond their self-evident names. The compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Scrive il valore letterale di un pin di ingresso non collegato' (writes the literal value of an unconnected input pin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bp_connect or ue_bp_break_pin, which deal with connections rather than setting literal values.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: setting literal values on unconnected input pins. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases (e.g., connected pins), but the 'non collegato' qualifier implicitly warns against using it on connected pins.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.